[anigbrowl]

The point is hollow, as is your restatement of it

why should I have to be the one having to work to pay the taxes required

You're not. You are not the only person paying tax. And far more of your tax bill is going toward subsidizing people and industries who are already rolling in money than helping relieve the burden on the poor.

I'm not saying you should pay more tax, you should probably be paying less. But we should reorganize the economy away from rewarding ownership of property as if it were productive economic economy activity in and of itself.

[motorest]

> The point is hollow, as is your restatement of it

No. I'm not sure if you failed to understand the question or you tried to avoid it. My question refers to the core argument involving any economic system: fairness and equity. Why are you trying to avoid touching on the topic?

> You're not. You are not the only person paying tax.

Yes, I am. Everyone is forced to pay taxes, and I am no different. In income redistribution schemes such as UBI you get a chunk of your salary taken straight from your pay check to finance other paychecks. So far this sort of scheme is used to cover salaries representing social safety nets such as pensions, disability, and temporarily for unemployed. UBI radically changes that, as it goes well beyond the role of social safety net and unconditionally extends this to everyone. So now you are faced with a scenario where you have two classes of people: those who sustain the scheme and make it possible, and those who only consume it's resources.

Even if you try to argue there's a net benefit to society, you must face the problem of lack of equity. For instance, how do you justify to people like OP that they should continue working at their jobs so that others can have the privilege of pursuing their personal interests? If you argue that OP is also free to quit his job to pursue his interests then you're advocating for an income redistribution scheme that presssures participants to not contribute to it and instead consume the resources it manages to mobilize.

[CuriousSkeptic]

> income redistribution schemes such as UBI

It’s a common framing, but UBI does not have to be that. Another may be that of a just compensation for giving up access to land.

> Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice

[motorest]

> It’s a common framing, but UBI does not have to be that.

Do you understand your comment is a textbook example of moving the goalpost?

I am not "framing" anything. I am describing to you exactly how a universal basic income scheme works. Even the argument presented by UBI proponents to counter the problems with equity and perverse incentives is that the net benefit comes from eliminating all other types of incentives and the overhead they require to validate and prevent fraud.

> Another may be that of a just compensation for giving up access to land.

I don't think you read the source you're citing. It proposed inheritance tax that funded only a very basic social safety net program that at best covered retirement pensions only to those who outlived life expectancy and only around 1/3 of the income of an average agricultural labourer. That is very far from what any UBI proposal required in terms of the sheer volume of income that has to be redistributed.

So even in your example you are faced with the challenges of math and budgeting. Where does the money come from? Apparently income redistribution and the fundamental problems of equity and fairness is not it, and the alternative you proposed would come very short of even covering a pensioner's basic needs. So where do you think the money comes from?

[CuriousSkeptic]

If you by moving the goalpost mean I'm not that interested in the actual size of an UBI, then yes that is probably fair. The point of my argument is exactly that an UBI does not need to be conceptualized from the perspective of needs but rather from the perspective of rights. As such I do agree that the math may not balance out to an amount that is actually livable. Which I think is a fine outcome.

The point of my source was not so much the economic argument, which, after all, talks about a reality several hundred years ago. Perhaps I should have linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism instead, to focus on the moral side of it.

I do think however that a modern take, especially if it turns out that recent AI developments will have sizable impact on the demand for human labor, could very well turn out to result in a dividend that is actually livable. Paine talks about land, but we should really consider all commons: Land, carbon emission rights, patents, copyright, trademark protections, electromagnetic spectrum, ip4 address space, dns names, the list can be made pretty extensive.

Perhaps it should end there. We could establish the idea of cooperatively owned legal entities representing various commons. These entities can collect rent in exchange for allocating parts of the commons to private use. I have a feeling it would make sense to take it a step further though, even if the details are probably over my head at the moment. It's already the case that pension funds function as a cooperative ownership of a part of all capital assets. And then there is home ownership and its connection to loans and wages. There probably will need to be some creative restructuring of this situation.

[jt2190]

I don’t understand your comments about “fairness” in the context of UBI. Doesn’t everyone get the benefit whether they work or don’t? Otherwise that wouldn’t be “universal”, would it?

[motorest]

> I don’t understand your comments about “fairness” in the context of UBI. Doesn’t everyone get the benefit whether they work or don’t? Otherwise that wouldn’t be “universal”, would it?

Your comment would only make sense if somehow you failed to understand the basics of the issue and fooled yourself into believing the system would only feature consumers and there were no producers at all. Everyone receives free money from the state, and thus it's all good. Right?

But think about it for a second. That money that everyone consumed, where do you expect it to come from? Who pays the bill? It's an income redistribution scheme, but whose income is subtracted do that there is money to pay someone else's income?

Once you figure that out, you will them be in a position to actually start thinking about the actual problem of equity and fairness: what incentive is there for anyone to generate the income that others require?

[anigbrowl]

> You're not. You are not the only person paying tax.

Yes, I am.

OK buddy